Himachal Pradesh High Court
Deva Nand vs Tara Chand And Another on 29 November, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CMPMO No.658 of 2023
Date of Decision : 29.11.2023
.
Deva Nand
...... Petitioner
Versus
Tara Chand and another
......Respondents
Coram:
of
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge
1
Whether approved for reporting? No
For the petitioner
rt : Mr. Ravinder Singh Chandel, Advocate.
For the respondents : Nemo.
Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral)
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking
quashing and setting aside order dated 26.09.2023, passed by learned
Rent Controller, Solan, in Case No.29/2017, titled Tara Chand vs.
Deva Nand, whereby, evidence of the respondent (petitioner herein),
was closed.
2. In the proceedings pending before the trial Court, on 23.02.2023,
following order was passed:-
"No RWs present despite the fact that this was the last
opportunity given to produce the witnesses on self
responsibility. Today neither respondent nor original
counsel is present and more than amble opportunities
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
have been given to produce the witnesses. As such,
evidence of the respondent is closed by the order of
Court.
Be listed for arguments on 13.3.2023."
.
3. The aforesaid order was challenged by the present petitioner on
a previous occasion by filing CMPMO No.89 of 2023. The same was
decided on 11.08.2023. A perusal of the judgment passed on
of
11.08.2023, categorically reflects that learned Single Judge found no
illegality in the impugned order dated 23.02.2023. In the given
attending facts and circumstances of the case at hand, based on
rt
concession given by the respondents therein (CMPMO No.89/2023),
the petition was allowed, affording one last opportunity to the present
petitioner to lead his evidence. In the aforesaid order, it was made
absolutely clear that the petitioner was to lead his entire evidence in
one go, failing which, no further opportunity was to be granted.
4. Besides the aforesaid, based on concession granted therein by
the respondents, the petitioner was burdened with costs of Rs.10,000/-.
5. Post passing of the judgment in CMPMO No.89 of 2023 dated
11.08.2023, the matter was listed before the learned trial Court, on
24.08.2023. Thereafter, the matter was listed on 26.09.2023. From a
perusal of orders dated 24.08.2023 and 26.09.2023, it is evident that
cost of Rs.10,000/- has not been deposited by the present petitioner.
6. Besides the aforesaid, it would be appropriate to refer to order
dated 17.02.2022, passed by the trial Court, whereby, the present
petitioner had been directed to produce the witnesses, on self
responsibility, on 23.02.2023. Since no witnesses were produced by
the petitioner, on self responsibility on 23.02.2023, therefore, right of
.
the present petitioner to lead the evidence was closed. As has already
been stated supra, the aforesaid order was challenged and learned
Single Judge had found no illegality in the impugned order.
7. That on 26.09.2023, no witnesses were produced by the present
of
petitioner. Keeping in view the sequence of the orders as narrated
herein above, especially orders dated 17.12.2022 and 23.02.2023, the
rt
witnesses were required to be produced on self responsibility,
therefore, no infirmity can be found in the order passed by the learned
trial Court. Even otherwise, as has already been stated hereinabove,
cost has not been paid. Therefore, in my considered view, there is no
illegality in the order dated 26.09.2023 passed by the learned Rent
Controller. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
( Bipin Chander Negi)
November 29, 2023 (KS) Judge
